Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz, on Zimmerman's arrest

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well sustaining a concusion certainly can kill. Hell, I am surprised we don't see more pro Football players die of concusions. Did Zimmerman indeed suffer a concusion? And if so was it to a degree that it could be life threatening? Even though Zimmerman may have felt fear for his life, could Trayvon have felt fear of bodily harm from Zimmerman at one point. After all what was Zimmerman suppose to be protecting. Trayvon may have acted in self defense himself and did so with great furver. There are many things to consider in this case. The one main feature is the use of deadly force with a firearm.

I wrote that you die from the concussion, as in "a stunning, damaging, or shattering effect from a hard blow". I wasn't saying that Zimmerman had lost consciousness, only that having his head pounded on the sidewalk could have killed him with concussive force. If Zimmerman had lost consciousness as a result of having his head pounded on the sidewalk, I think it's likely that he would have died from additional blows suffered while he was unconscious. I think this is what Zimmerman feared and it's why he shot his attacker.

Definition of CONCUSSION
1
a : a stunning, damaging, or shattering effect from a hard blow; especially : a jarring injury of the brain resulting in disturbance of cerebral function b : a hard blow or collision

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by mastermind238

Is there any reason to believe the prosecutor would get a different story from Zimmerman in court?

Yes. More than one reason.

Some of you keep focusing on "death" ... "killing" .... it is irrelevant to the legal issue:

one can use "deadly force" against someone who one reasonably believes is going to kill them OR cause them serious bodily injury .(Texas) [Florida says "great bodily harm"]... the use of the "deadly force" is merely to STOP the person from doing what one perceives they are about to do or are doing and the statute/law does not speak in terms of the person being authorized to KILL or cause the other person die in defense of themselves ....

if the other person dies from the "deadly force" applied ... so be it. That is irrelevant from the standpoint of the justification to engage in the use of "deadly force."

If anyone thinks a concussion is NOT "great bodily harm" then go back to medical school.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Would it make a difference if Zimmerman had used a baseball bat?

Or a "night-stick"?



Then the reverse question ought to be:

Would this thread even exist had Trayvon killed Zimmerman?

Would the story even get front page news anywhere? Or even a follow up the next day?

No probably not. But firearms are designed as weapons Baseball Bats are not. Although they can be used to maim or kill.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

...

#2: For the most part the prosecution regulates what is presented to the grand jury, just like the prosecution "cherry-picked" what went into the affidavit (probable cause) to get an arrest warrant.

...

Seriously? So contrary to what Dershowitz says there is no legal or ethical obligation for the Prosecutor to include or present any self-defense evidence? Is the Defense even allowed to speak?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

If you mean verbal only without a display of a "deadly weapon" (or something that looks like a deadly weapon) you're right.

I have yet to see any account that suggests this was "verbal only."

....

Generally I meant "verbal only." However, I have not heard or seen any account that suggests PRIOR TO MARTIN BEATING ZIMMERMIN there were any threats or even verbal exchanges between the two men. In fact, if you go thru the youtube vid of the arrest affidavit the officer said there was no evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch.

[bladtinzu]

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

I think Zimmerman will get a fair trial. I am glad that Al Sharpton and others got involved and brought this case to light because had they not this guy would have gotten away without ever haven been investigated or arrested.

The only thing those two race baiters do is stir up trouble and leech off their own people because they are too goddamn lazy to find a real job. If Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today he would bitch slap both of those idiots for the bullshit they pull.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by mastermind238

That was the whole point of offering the Dershowitz clip to start this thread ... in the expert opinion of a highly respected Harvard Law School professor, the contents of the charging document do not support the charge.

More than being a liberal or a conservative, Dershowitz is a defense lawyer. What do you expect a defense lawyer to say?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

You are missing the point. Simple threatening does not justify use of deadly force.

Why yes, I'm glad you agree with me. Who is dead?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes. More than one reason.

Some of you keep focusing on "death" ... "killing" .... it is irrelevant to the legal issue:

one can use "deadly force" against someone who one reasonably believes is going to kill them OR cause them serious bodily injury .(Texas) [Florida says "great bodily harm"]... the use of the "deadly force" is merely to STOP the person from doing what one perceives they are about to do or are doing and the statute/law does not speak in terms of the person being authorized to KILL or cause the other person die in defense of themselves ....

if the other person dies from the "deadly force" applied ... so be it. That is irrelevant from the standpoint of the justification to engage in the use of "deadly force."

If anyone thinks a concussion is NOT "great bodily harm" then go back to medical school.

I understand what you are trying to say. Unfortunately it really doesn't apply here. I actually see this whole incident as a street brawl of sorts. Even though Zimmerman was a Neighborhood watch guy he over stepped those boundries by approaching Trayvon even after what I understand a Police Dispatcher instructed him otherwise. Zimmerman at that point became an aggressor. I think it's safe to assume that Trayvon felt intimidated and threatened by Zimmerman approaching him. Zimmerman isn't a LE Officer or even a Security Guard. He has no official authority to approach and question Trayvon Martin. An altercation insues and Zimmerman is getting his ass kicked. Well apparently Zimmerman felt he had only two choices kill or be killed. We all know what decision he made. Unfortunately it will bring him a great deal of grief. Iam not going to say that he'll get life or the Death Penalty, but I don't think he'll walk away with just alot of inconveience and a lesson learned, no I don't think so.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

God, no wonder Nancy Grace is still on TV. Considering the national assault on liberty across the country, this is a minor matter, yet it takes up a lot of time and space.

rotflmao...no shit cutiepie. Another thing we agree on. It boggles the mind that folks are shit'n their pants over this.

I can stand Nancy Grace btw along with Alan D. Fuc'em both

[bladtinzu]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I understand what you are trying to say. Unfortunately it really doesn't apply here. I actually see this whole incident as a street brawl of sorts. Even though Zimmerman was a Neighborhood watch guy he over stepped those boundries by approaching Trayvon even after what I understand a Police Dispatcher instructed him otherwise. Zimmerman at that point became an aggressor. I think it's safe to assume that Trayvon felt intimidated and threatened by Zimmerman approaching him. Zimmerman isn't a LE Officer or even a Security Guard. He has no official authority to approach and question Trayvon Martin. An altercation insues and Zimmerman is getting his ass kicked. Well apparently Zimmerman felt he had only two choices kill or be killed. We all know what decision he made. Unfortunately it will bring him a great deal of grief. Iam not going to say that he'll get life or the Death Penalty, but I don't think he'll walk away with just alot of inconveience and a lesson learned, no I don't think so.

I think he will walk on the state charges. But then the supreme idiot Eric Holder will have his goon platoon come at him with charges of violating the thugs civil rights. Not easy to beat those charges. The deck is stacked against you like on a RICO charge..

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Seriously? So contrary to what Dershowitz says there is no legal or ethical obligation for the Prosecutor to include or present any self-defense evidence? Is the Defense even allowed to speak?

#1: I am not familiar with Florida legal and ethical obligations, but I know of none in Texas. Since "self-defense" can be "waived" it would be "presumptuous" for the prosecution to "assume" that the accused would even assert "self-defense" .... for the accused to assert "self-defense" the accused must admit that the accused did in fact do the thing for which the accused is being charged .... the accused might not want to admit anything ... and thereby require the government to prove its burden without the help of the accused ....

#2: At times the prosecution will ask defense counsel if the soon to be defendant would like to testify before the grand jury ... "said the spider to the fly" .... and I have yet to meet a "client" of any attorney who was capable of winning "their case" by their own testimony ... although I have met some that lost "their cases" ... because of their testimony ... so sure the defendant "can" be heard .... but why cooperate with the prosecution when there is an excellent chance that the grand jury will return an indictment anyway ....

#3: Although I have admittedly not heard what "Dershowitz says" there may be some merit to complaining about the facts contained in a probable cause affidavit for an arrest warrant, it does not, IMO, provide any defense to the underlying charge that would result in Zimmerman not being prosecuted for the underlying offense ... murder. It is similar to a complaint of "police brutality" during an arrest for an offense; it is not a defense to the crime. It may have some negotiating value down the road to either a dismissal, reduction in the degree of offense, or mitigation consideration in the sentence .. in a plea bargain ... but it is not a "defense" and does not justify the offense that occurred prior to the police misconduct.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I understand what you are trying to say. Unfortunately it really doesn't apply here. I actually see this whole incident as a street brawl of sorts. Even though Zimmerman was a Neighborhood watch guy he over stepped those boundries by approaching Trayvon even after what I understand a Police Dispatcher instructed him otherwise. Zimmerman at that point became an aggressor. I think it's safe to assume that Trayvon felt intimidated and threatened by Zimmerman approaching him. Zimmerman isn't a LE Officer or even a Security Guard. He has no official authority to approach and question Trayvon Martin. An altercation insues and Zimmerman is getting his ass kicked. Well apparently Zimmerman felt he had only two choices kill or be killed. We all know what decision he made. Unfortunately it will bring him a great deal of grief. Iam not going to say that he'll get life or the Death Penalty, but I don't think he'll walk away with just alot of inconveience and a lesson learned, no I don't think so.

Zimmerman turned around when the dispatcher said not to pursue and was walking back to his vehicle when Trayvon attacked him. Zimmerman was not the aggressor.

I hope the case never goes to trial. The judge has the authority to dismiss the charges at the arraignment on May 29 if he thinks the evidence is not sufficient to proceed. The only crimes committed in this case were committed by Trayvon and the special prosecutor.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I understand what you are trying to say. Unfortunately it really doesn't apply here.

What I said does apply to the discussion. The problem is the discussion does not apply to what happened (which NO ONE on here knows). In fact there is only one person who knows what happened from start to finish.

Gad, ....
.... I have now listened to the Professor. When he is speaking about "unethical" I trust he is not suggesting that any administrative action will be initiated to "dink" the prosecutor for preparing a probable cause affidavit that favors the prosecution, as opposed to assisting the accused. And, although I would never "presume" to know what is happening in his mind, I do not believe he intended to suggest such a thing, but was speaking in "ethics" in a broad term of inappropriateness as opposed to a legal concept that would support licensing consequences.

I am putting what he said in the context of his entire remarks ... he said the affidavit was "thin" ... he did not say it was false ... and he did say "if" the prosecution can prove what it says .... and he speaks in terms of "what" is known now ... the time line could be critical in what was reported by the media and what was known to LE (then the prosecutor) and WHEN on that time line. The Professor's remarks pre-suppose that all of the information was known to LE and the prosecutor BEFORE the affidavit was prepared and VERIFIED as being true BEFORE the affidavit was prepared. He even makes his comments in light of "what we now know"???? Really? He doesn't know jack shit about the evidence .... any more than we do.

I am not sure what he means by being "thin" also ...

Two men meet and get into a confrontration or "street brawl" ... one pulls a pistol, shoots at the other one, and kills the other one with the pistol. It is a homicide. Did he intend to shoot him? Yes. Did he die? Yes.

Professor: It is a homicide. In Texas:

Murder =
"A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; ..."

I have no reason to believe that Florida law differs in any meaningful way.

He intended to shoot Trayvon. He intended to cause serious bodily injury, which shooting someone customarily does, and he committed an act (shooting Trayvon) that was clearly dangerous to Trayvon's life (shooting usually does that) and Trayvon died ... which was caused by the shooting ...." (which often happens when one shoots another person).

Is that "thin" ........... ? The evidence against Oswald was "thin"!

The Professor could just as easily take the other side of that fact situation, but he aligns himself historically with the defense side....particularly when he is hustling his next theatrical stage.

As for the "dispatcher" giving directives to Zimmerman ... huh? So what? Does anyone actually believe that a dispatcher has any "authority" to tell anyone what to do that would create any criminal consequences if the citizen refused to "obey" the dispatcher's instructions? Let me repeat that ...... dispatcher!

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

In fact, if you go thru the youtube vid of the arrest affidavit the officer said there was no evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch.

When you are carrying a gun you don't have to throw a punch to threaten someone, do you?

And when you are carrying a gun you don't need to speak a lot to threaten someone either.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by bladtinzu

The only thing those two race baiters do is stir up trouble and leech off their own people because they are too goddamn lazy to find a real job. If Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today he would bitch slap both of those idiots for the bullshit they pull.

No disagreement from me on that point.